This is partly an attempt to cut the country’s historically high levels of young people who are NEET (not in education, employment or training).

An OECD study from 2012 found that 18 per cent of people in the UK had left school without doing A-levels, putting the country at number 25 out of 36 for drop-out rates.

NEET rates have dropped in recent months but remain worryingly high. In April to June 2014 8 per cent of people aged 16 to 18 were not in education, employment or training, the lowest second-quarter figure since records began in 2000.

The government has raise the participation age to 18 via the Education and Skills Act 2008, which places a legal “duty” on the pupil (not their parents) to participate in some kind of education or training.

But what does that really mean? What happens to young people who refuse? Err…nothing.

The government’s advice to parents reads: “The law has changed, but there will be no action taken against any young people who don’t participate. We want to encourage your child to participate because of the benefits it will bring.”

There was some talk from the Prime Minister about stopping young people who were NEET from getting benefits, but this won’t happen until after the election.

As far as we can tell (information from the Department for Education has not been forthcoming yet) the welfare rules haven’t changed, which means 16- and 17-year-olds who aren’t in work or on a course can access some, though by no means all, state benefits.

Even though there are no penalties for not taking part, local councils are apparently expected to track down young people who don’t play ball.

“Your local authority is responsible for identifying and supporting 16-17 year olds who are not participating and will be working to ensure that young people are enrolled on a suitable education or training place.”

Similarly, the government is asking employers to give young workers some kind of part-time education or training, but not making them.

DfE advice is that under-18s working full-time should also study for “a minimum of 280 guided learning hours per year, which is the equivalent to one day per week but doesn’t necessarily have to be taken that way – it could be distance or evening learning for example.”

Very flexible. In fact it’s pretty clear that it doesn’t have to be taken at all: “There are no duties on employers in relation to RPA (Raising the Participation Age), so there will be no action taken against you if your employee fails to undertake part-time training.”

In fact, the 2008 legislation did place two duties on employers – to check that a young worker is enrolled on a suitable training course and to agree hours that will let them study – but these parts of the Act “will not be introduced“, the government assures employers.

“We think that employers will encourage young people to train without the need for burdensome new duties and so we have decided not to commence these two duties in 2013.”

The verdict

This is a curious situation. On the face of it, the law has been changed so that 16-year-olds must stay in education or training until they are 18. But what happens if you break the law? Nothing.

Things are even more relaxed when it comes to employers making sure that their teenage staff do some kind of training as well as working.

That is apparently the intention, but the government has decided not to implement its own legislation. So what happens to employers if young people choose not to study as well as work? Nothing.

More from Channel 4 FactCheck

14 reader comments

Mrs Grimblesays:

My theory is that somebody realised only very late on that the new regulations would apply to ALL teenagers – including the children of the wealthy. So Jemima and Theo would no longer be able to spend their time doing nothing but party, drink, take drugs, shop, and commit random acts of deliquency. They would actually have to carry on studying! And that cannot be allowed to happen.

Two facts worth thinking about:
1. The total extra cash that a guy with a degree earns over a life time spent working comes to £200,000 when compared to somebody who left school at 16. Sounds like a lot, eh? Well, by the time that high flier has paid extra tax and social security contributions, that works out at about £50 or £60 extra per week. Is that really worth 5 or 6 year’s extra schooling?
2. Because the high flier starts earning his first salary 5 or 6 years later (that is, if he doesn’t have to spend 1 or 2 year’s as an unpaid intern) and because he has to pay back the odd £40,000 to £60,000 spent on all that extra education, he will be 45 to 50 years old before his total lifetime net earnings exceed those of somebody who left school at 16. That’s why you see all those middle-aged boys on their Harleys.

When I was a lad you left school at 15. Universities had fixed allocation from Public schools plus limited access for few high flyers able to win state scholarships from, what where then, fee paying Grammar schools. The total undergraduate intake was the 2.7% required to maintain the professions The remaining 97.3% went into the work force, some 10% as trade apprentices who could become trade professionals,the rest as labour.It was recognised that increased education increased skill increased productivity increased profit increased economic growth, so we are where we are with many new universities forced to recruit 40% at huge cost to the workforce who are obliged to fund this nonsense. There is little increase in productivity as the skills required are hands-on technical not academic. It’s time we stopped electing classical debating party hacks who only know about high cost elite education in favour of those who know how things work in the real world and who will tailor our education training to suit.

after the age or 16 you should be able to do what you want whether that be go to collage, join the army or get a job or even do nothing. also when you study GCSEs you have to get a C in English and maths to be able to take A Levels or a level 3 BTEC.

I have just finished high school my GCSEs and due to me not achieving my C in maths and English the government wont allow my to study preforming arts level 3 BTEC, which has nothing to do with maths and English. I now have to waste another year of my life completing the English and maths GCSEs to get a C grade before the government will allow me to study my preforming arts level 3 BTEC.

David Cameron is just some snob down in London that thinks everyone should get good qualifications so they can pay more taxes for him to waste on immigrants on benefits.

however the government wont stop me. It may take me a year of rubbish before a can do proper training for a performer, but I will become a performer. What I class as a really job, although other may not.

GCSEs are great if you are a doctor, police officer, or a teacher. but GCSEs are not needed for every job.

Andrew: A performer is ‘someone who can execute tricks in a public show’. Will you enjoy doing the trick people will pay to see for the best part of your life, a trick that requires hard earned skill . If you are not smart enough to win a C grade GCE it is unlikely that you will learn a trick that will be in great demand by a paying public. Professional performers are always very intelligent, gifted and dedicated with years of practice. Is this you ???

“so they can pay more taxes for him to waste on immigrants on benefits”
Oh Dear!
It’s not often that I agree with the snob David Cameron but I do think you are in need of a little more education as you are clearly ignorant.

After the age or 16 you should be able to do what you want whether that be go to collage, join the army or get a job or even do nothing. also when you study GCSEs you have to get a C in English and maths to be able to take A Levels or a level 3 BTEC.

I have just finished high school my GCSEs and due to me not achieving my C in maths and English the government wont allow my to study preforming arts level 3 BTEC, which has nothing to do with maths and English. I now have to waste another year of my life completing the English and maths GCSEs to get a C grade before the government will allow me to study my preforming arts level 3 BTEC.

David Cameron is just some snob down in London that thinks everyone should get good qualifications so they can pay more taxes for him to waste on immigrants on benefits.

however the government wont stop me. It may take me a year of rubbish before a can do proper training for a performer, but I will become a performer. What I class as a really job, although other may not.

GCSEs are great if you are a doctor, police officer, or a teacher. but GCSEs are not needed for every job.

so my point is you should leave education when you feel your ready not when the government tells you to.

Hi im a 17 year old guy, i currently am at sixth form, it january i got a part time job as a kitchen porter. I slowly worked my way up and now im a chef! The problem is, that as i have been working so much my results went down hill as i was asked to become a chef.. I am very passionate about being a chef and want to do it for the rest of my life! I just want to quit education and go into full time! Is that even possible? As it would be a better option for me than staying on another year doing nothing, is there anything i can do?

My son is currently taking his GCSE’S so leaving school this summer . He has applied for the army and hoping to start his training March next year. What does he do till then ? Does he enroll into further education even though he will not be there to take exams or can he work full time till then ? We are not sure on the process is there anyone in the same situation that can advise .

My best advice would be to join a vocational college. There he will work to standards – not to qualifications and therefore not missing any exams. Depending on the vocation he studies, he may have an advantage when joining the army.

I’m not in a similar situation myself but… I work in a vocational college and we have school leavers who want to join the army in March next year as mechanics/engineers. They’ve enrolled here in the motor vehicle department and are thriving.

I think it is absolutely stupid, has anyone actually looked at it from a 16 – 17’s point of view. I hated school and I have just finished one very long and boring year at college, But because of the government, I still have to go back and do another pointless year studying. They try and say “get an apprenticeship”, but can you actually find an employer in the sector you want and a college/education provider who is willing to give an apprenticeship. It is absolutely ridiculous.

At last some information that is informative rather than confusing and contradictive. My 16 yr old finished school achieving relatively good grades but with absolutely no idea what course she wanted to do. She had completed work experience at a local company and they offered her full time work at just under £7 per hour. I checked the government site and spoke to a careers advisor he said she had to complete 280 hrs extra learning. My daughter wanted to work and save enough money to travel so she accepted the position . Trying to find a part time course has been a nightmare and so stressful . Citizens advice had no idea the leaving age had been raised and after several weeks of going around in circles we have placed it in the hands of our local MP. The information you have given has answered all the questions with clarity and I will reiterate this to my MP first thing tomorrow.